Journal of Medical Ethics 34 (7):568-572 (2008)
AbstractThe ethics review system of research is now well-established, at least in the developed world, although there are many differences in how countries view it and go about managing it. The UK specifically is now seeking to revise its system by speeding up the process of ethics approval but only for some studies. It is proposed that only those studies which pose “no material ethical issues” should be “fast-tracked”. However, it is unclear what this means, who should decide and what should be included in this category. In this paper, we go some way towards answering these questions. While we are certain that the debate is only just beginning, we are equally certain that it will continue to run long after the system has been reformed. To stimulate this conversation and to inform a pilot project of the new system directly, we review two candidates to help give some substance to the notion of “material” ethical issues. Firstly, material could mean a certain type or degree of risk. Second, material could mean how physically invasive the research is. We conclude that there is still much work to be done on making the system of governing health and social care consistent and practicable
Similar books and articles
The principle of proportionality revisited: interpretations and applications. [REVIEW]Göran Hermerén - 2012 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 15 (4):373-382.
Theory Pursuit: Between Discovery and Acceptance.Laurie Anne Whitt - 1990 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1990:467 - 483.
Looking from the Outside/In: Re-thinking Research Ethics Review. [REVIEW]Dominique Rivière - 2011 - Journal of Academic Ethics 9 (3):193-204.
Afterword: Proportionality and the difference death makes.William A. Edmundson - 2002 - Criminal Justice Ethics 21 (2):40-43.
Embryos, The Principle of Proportionality, and the Shaky Ground of Moral Respect.Jonathan Pugh - 2014 - Bioethics 28 (8):420-426.
Doing justice to rights and values: Teleological reasoning and proportionality. [REVIEW]Giovanni Sartor - 2010 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 18 (2):175-215.
Proportionality, just war theory and weapons innovation.John Forge - 2009 - Science and Engineering Ethics 15 (1):25-38.
American balancing and German proportionality: The historical origins.Moshe Cohen-Eliya & Iddo Porat - unknown
Proportionality in modern just war theory: A tort-based approach.Davis Brown - 2011 - Journal of Military Ethics 10 (3):213-229.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
The Role, Remit and Function of the Research Ethics Committee — 1. The Rationale for Ethics Review of Research by Committee.Sarah J. L. Edwards - 2009 - Research Ethics 5 (4):147-150.
The Ethics and Confidentiality Committee and Research Ethics Committees.Andrew Harris - 2010 - Research Ethics 6 (4):117-119.
References found in this work
Proportional ethical review and the identification of ethical issues.D. Hunter - 2007 - Journal of Medical Ethics 33 (4):241-245.
Ethics in Medical Research: A Handbook of Good Practice.Trevor Smith - 1999 - Cambridge University Press.
Medical studies with 'no material ethical issues' - an unhelpful, confusing and potentially unethical suggestion.S. M. Yentis & A. J. Dawson - 2006 - Clinical Ethics 1 (4):234-236.
The Ad Hoc Advisory Group's proposals for research ethics committees: a mixture of the timid, the revolutionary, and the bizarre.A. J. Dawson - 2005 - Journal of Medical Ethics 31 (8):435-436.